What will you get for your €100 property tax?

n97 mini

Been doing some rudimentary maths here, and it seems like not a lot is the answer.

Taking the average public sector salary of around €50k, this will pay the salaries of around 320 public servants.

There are 34 local authorities across the country (I'm leaving out the 80 or so town councils), so on average this will pay the salaries of 9 staff per authority.

My local authority has over 4,000 staff, and this will pay for 0.002% of them.

If it doubles next year... well it's still not going to amount to a lot.

Jaysoose

n97 mini wrote: »

Been doing some rudimentary maths here, and it seems like not a lot is the answer.

Taking the average public sector salary of around €50k, this will pay the salaries of around 320 public servants.

There are 34 local authorities across the country (I'm leaving out the 80 or so town councils), so on average this will pay the salaries of 9 staff per authority.

My local authority has over 4,000 staff, and this will pay for 0.002% of them.

If it doubles next year... well it's still not going to amount to a lot.

This money will go toward the increments of public servants next year..simple.

Zulu

It's not going to double next year, it'll go to about €500, and then €1200 the following year.

...so what are you going to get? More bills & bigger bills, for the "same wages". No tax increases, just bill increases.

Jaysoose

Well said ZULU the fat cats in gubberment think we are all stupid, the payments will not get anywhere near the local authorities and will be poured into the black hole of the public finances.

Zulu

FACT.

nukin_futs

Ok, public sector pay aside - where we all know it as actually going, local authorities provide more than you imagine:
Parks, libraries, street lighting immediately spring to mind.

There was a good show on Channel 4 (I think) called the street. One street conducted an experiment, where instead of paying their poll tax, they got to keep it and had to provide the same services themselves. Incidentally, poll tax is much higher than this initial €100 charge, but they also seemed to get a bit more, e.g. water, waste collection, school transportation, some benefits (disability, lone parents) were also paid by the local authority. It was interesting to see them try to substitute the same services and they ultimately decided they got a lot for their money.

My problem with the household charge is that not all areas benefit to the same extent. I guess we will end up back with the old 'Rates', each to be determined by local authorities. Hopefully we will then have a more transparent view of how the money is spent, and where and how much is being spent on/by councillors wages, expenses etc.

Zulu

nukin_futs wrote: »

Ok, public sector pay aside - where we all know it as actually going,....

This is complete shannaigans though. They slashed the local authorities current funding & put this in it's place. Where has the local authorities funding gone? Well that money has been reallocated to cover more important bill, like non-proformance linked automatic pay rises and the like.

Robbing n97 mini to pay Jaysoose isn't kidding Zulu.

Jaysoose

Zulu wrote: »

This is complete shannaigans though. They slashed the local authorities current funding & put this in it's place. Where has the local authorities funding gone? Well that money has been reallocated to cover more important bill, like non-proformance linked automatic pay rises and the like.

Robbing n97 mini to pay Jaysoose isn't kidding Zulu.

Tru dat, i have to say i like the way you think and would like to sunscribe to your newsletter.

sunshinediver

Jaysoose wrote: »

This money will go toward the increments of public servants next year..simple.

And you have inside knowledge of this? you're certain it won't be used towards paying interest on loans secured to bailout private sector banks?

Zulu

sunshinediver wrote: »

And you have inside knowledge of this? you're certain it won't be used towards paying interest on loans secured to bailout private sector banks?

Yea he showed me a personally signed letter from Mr. Gilmore stating exactly that.

Look the reality of it is that non-performance linked automatic pay rises are still in place. The money to cover that is still coming out of the money available to the government & the money the government borrows. While there is still blatant wastage visible in public spending any new tax, levy, or bill is going to be very hard to swallow.

When people see cutbacks happening & cost efficiencies put in place, then they've little to be complaining about, but until that's evident, they've every right to be pissed off.

kippy

While I can understand some of the bile directed towards public servants especially in times such as these, I do find it strange that people are happy enough to hammer them while not mentioning anything about the monies being repaid to bondholders.
At least, there is some tangible return for the citizen of the state in paying tax that goes towards the running of the country where the money is generally put back into the economy. When your taxes go towards the payment of unsecured monies to bondholders in other countries, where you get NOTHING for it, people seem to be okay about it.

Im not against further public sector pay cuts by the way, and I do believe some level of property tax is required (either way) however I amn't comfortable with my taxes paying back what should be loses of unsecured bondholders in banks we shouldnt have anything to do with at this stage.

sunshinediver

Zulu wrote: »

Yea he showed me a personally signed letter from Mr. Gilmore stating exactly that.

Look the reality of it is that non-performance linked automatic pay rises are still in place. The money to cover that is still coming out of the money available to the government & the money the government borrows. While there is still blatant wastage visible in public spending any new tax, levy, or bill is going to be very hard to swallow.

When people see cutbacks happening & cost efficiencies put in place, then they've little to be complaining about, but until that's evident, they've every right to be pissed off.

You seem to have missed my point completely. I think you'll find that the reality of it is that the government has many outgoings including public service payments, national debt servicing aswell as funding capital expenditure such as school building etc. To state that money from the household charge is ONLY going to be used to fund public sector payrises is absolutely absurd.

Yes automatic pay rises in the PS should be abolished and people have a right to be pissed off with the current situation but thats a completely different debate.

n97 mini

Another way to look at it is a 0.002% increase in productivity in the local authorities and we wouldn't need the €100 household tax. I think even the hardest of public sector defenders wouldn't argue that 0.002% is anything but achievable.

Zulu

kippy wrote: »

I do find it strange that people are happy enough to hammer them while not mentioning anything about the monies being repaid to bondholders.

Why strange? People are hardly going to list out all of what they're angry about, but they will pick a particular object of irk. "Non-performance related pay rises for all" is a sure fire, obvious target.

sunshinediver wrote: »

You seem to have missed my point completely.

Sadly I didn't, but I can't say the same for yourself.

To state that money from the household charge is ONLY going to be used to fund public sector payrises is absolutely absurd.

It is absurd, and that's probably why no one has made that statement. What's the point of inventing things people have not said, and then getting outraged, can I ask?

Yes automatic pay rises in the PS should be abolished and people have a right to be pissed off

I'm glad we agree.

with the current situation but thats a completely different debate.

Well not "completely different", "completely different" would be whether or not the white rino's population decline is linked to pesticides. How the government spends the public finances is linked to the introduction of this charge.

kippy

n97 mini wrote: »

Another way to look at it is a 0.002% increase in productivity in the local authorities and we wouldn't need the €100 household tax. I think even the hardest of public sector defenders wouldn't argue that 0.002% is anything but achievable.

The property tax isn't just a mechanism for paying public sector workers. It's a requirement as set out by the EU/IMF in order to stabilise out tax system over the coming years.
The 100 euro is a starting point. It will go higher. The benefit of it, as opposed to one of consumption taxes (which was what the "boom" was built on) is that the take is predictible and won't fluctuate.
It's gotten very little to do with productivity in the public sector.

sunshinediver

Zulu wrote: »

Sadly I didn't, but I can't say the same for yourself.
It is absurd, and that's probably why no one has made that statement. What's the point of inventing things people have not said, and then getting outraged, can I ask?

I'm glad we agree.
Well not "completely different", "completely different" would be whether or not the white rino's population decline is linked to pesticides. How the government spends the public finances is linked to the introduction of this charge.

Actually you did mate.. "Well that money has been reallocated to cover more important bill, like non-proformance linked automatic pay rises and the like." Who's Outraged? you've lost me now.

As for you're final comment you're just being pedantic.

Zulu

sunshinediver wrote: »

Actually you did mate..

Actually I didn't mate, if you observe closely, there is no "ONLY" in that sentance.

...perhaps there's good reason for pendantary?

pog it

n97 mini wrote: »

Been doing some rudimentary maths here, and it seems like not a lot is the answer.

Taking the average public sector salary of around €50k, this will pay the salaries of around 320 public servants.

There are 34 local authorities across the country (I'm leaving out the 80 or so town councils), so on average this will pay the salaries of 9 staff per authority.

My local authority has over 4,000 staff, and this will pay for 0.002% of them.

If it doubles next year... well it's still not going to amount to a lot.

Recapitalization of the banks, inflated pay for middle management, office-based public sector workers who can be bought off for votes, etc. You should know by now.

sunshinediver

Zulu wrote: »

Actually I didn't mate, if you observe closely, there is no "ONLY" in that sentance.

...perhaps there's good reason for pendantary?

Ok but you admit that some of this money might also be used to build and refurbish schools, pay for disability services and fund research and development?

As you wish, lets be pedantic, Could you please tell me the exact percentage of revenue generated from this new tax that will be used to fund pay rises for non performing civil servants? Seeing as this is the only source of govt expenditure that you continue to highlight in previous threads you must be certain that this is where a lot of this money would go??

I'm just interested to know how you have such indepth knowledge of government expenditure or perhaps you're making certain assumptions?

n97 mini

kippy wrote: »

The property tax isn't just a mechanism for paying public sector workers. It's a requirement as set out by the EU/IMF in order to stabilise out tax system over the coming years.

I'm aware of that. My point is it goes straight to the local authority and in a bigger context gets very little.

kippy

n97 mini wrote: »

I'm aware of that. My point is it goes straight to the local authority and in a bigger context gets very little.

I dont get the relevance of your point.
Overtime I believe the "very little" will become a lot more.

n97 mini

kippy wrote: »

I dont get the relevance of your point.
Overtime I believe the "very little" will become a lot more.

You mean we'll all be paying more? If we're paying €600 each, it's still only a drop in the ocean versus the local authorities' expenditure (on even just salaries).

kippy

n97 mini wrote: »

You mean we'll all be paying more? If we're paying €600 each, it's still only a drop in the ocean versus the local authorities' expenditure (on even just salaries).

Yeah, this is an interm measure. I don't exactly know how much more, but it will be more.
The point is, the government have another stable income source that they didn't have before. Where it goes is pretty much irrelevant (from the EU/IMF point of view)

Bullseye1

A receipt.

n97 mini

kippy wrote: »

Where it goes is pretty much irrelevant (from the EU/IMF point of view)

This is where I think the govt could play it better. If people were told it was going into schools in the area, or parks, or something that isn't quite the big general black hole that is the local authority, it would be an easier sell.

kippy

n97 mini wrote: »

This is where I think the govt could play it better. If people were told it was going into schools in the area, or parks, or something that isn't quite the big general black hole that is the local authority, it would be an easier sell.

It's impossible to give those types of commitments and if they did, it wouldn't be long before they'd have to move the money from these commitments into others.

Jaysoose

sunshinediver wrote: »

And you have inside knowledge of this? you're certain it won't be used towards paying interest on loans secured to bailout private sector banks?

Do you have knowledge to say it wont?

Zulu

sunshinediver wrote: »

Ok

well then, less of the attitude and straw man building please.

but you admit that some of this money might also be used to build and refurbish schools, pay for disability services and fund research and development?

Where did I admit that? or are you accrediting me with statments I never made again??
As it happens, public spending covers all that, and more! Don't forget supporting the Arts, guarding our coast line, arresting & convicting rapists... etc. etc.

As you wish, lets be pedantic, Could you please tell me the exact percentage of revenue generated from this new tax that will be used to fund pay rises for non performing civil servants?

37.39%

Seeing as this is the only source of govt expenditure that you continue to highlight in previous threads

Which previous threads are you talking about? You have me at a loss.

I'm just interested to know how you have such indepth knowledge of government expenditure

Current affairs, and media publication. How about you? Clearly if you are challanging my understanding of fiscal policy, you believe you have a superiour grasp, care to share your qualifications?

or perhaps you're making certain assumptions?

Who's making assumptions?
Are the government not making "increments"? If they are making these payments, are they not coming from the public finances?? Please correct any incorrect assumptions I'm making.

GetWithIt

My E100 will pay nearly 2/3s of 1 months child benefit for someone earning over 250K per annum.

Maybe .... if ....... child benefit .......... was ....................... taxed ...........................

sunshinediver

Zulu wrote: »

well then, less of the attitude and straw man building please.

No attitude here.

Where did I admit that? or are you accrediting me with statments I never made again??
As it happens, public spending covers all that, and more! Don't forget supporting the Arts, guarding our coast line, arresting & convicting rapists... etc. etc.

Ok, do you see the "?" at the end of my post? That means it's a question, I am not attributing any statements to you

37.39%

Now you're just taking the piss.

Which previous threads are you talking about? You have me at a loss.

Should have said posts, my bad.

Current affairs, and media publication. How about you? Clearly if you are challanging my understanding of fiscal policy, you believe you have a superiour grasp, care to share your qualifications?

At what point did I state I was challenging your understanding of fiscal policy, I simply asked you a question.

Who's making assumptions?
Are the government not making "increments"? If they are making these payments, are they not coming from the public finances?? Please correct any incorrect assumptions I'm making.

Of course they will, However how do you know that these increments haven't been funded through money saved from not renewing the contracts of those public service workers who were contract based?* Or perhaps money saved in other areas of spending not related to tax. Simple answer is you don't. Assumption corrected.

*this doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do.

bbsrs

This tax should vary depending on location as in the Uk where it is based on postcodes. The value of your home or site wouldn't be a very fair way of setting it in my opinion.

Zulu

sunshinediver wrote: »

At what point did I state I was challenging your understanding of fiscal policy, I simply asked you a question.

Indeed, so you were either being sincere when you wondered where I got "such indepth knowledge of government expenditure" or snide. Were you sincere, you'd hardly be disagreeing so I'm taking it you were being snide, or at the very least trying to be smart.

Either-ways you've failed to make any sort of convincing counter point so unless you are interested in contributing to the OP, good luck to you.

saa

Look we told them to save and now they're not spending money anyone, quick grab the crowbar we'll get that money some how, sure everyone can afford 2 euro a week, cough cough I mean 25

Zulu

Ahh but you see, the saving is good, and the introduction of more taxes/bills isn't, in principle, bad, but...

there is plenty of waste that could be sorted out first. Sort the wastage, then, THEN, bill & tax the **** out of us.

Icepick

OP = math fail

flutered

in 2006 limerick co.council had six managers, in 2010 they had thirteen, they also have huge repayments and maintenance on the grass house (county building) they erected in raheen, they have massive repayments on their pink elephants (sorry newly developed offices) in newcastlewest and kilmallock, now that there is no building of new houses, no road upgrading to be done, almost all their money is going on the management and morgages that were never required.

RobbieTheRobber

Zulu wrote: »

Ahh but you see, the saving is good, and the introduction of more taxes/bills isn't, in principle, bad, but...

there is plenty of waste that could be sorted out first. Sort the wastage, then, THEN, bill & tax the **** out of us.

Is there 12 billion in waste in the public services that can be solved in 3 years?

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Is there 12 billion in waste in the public services that can be solved in 3 years?

Why does it have to be 12 billion in waste, this mantra of only gaining negligible savings by sorting out all the frivolous waste is an insult to the taxpayer. ANY waste should be stomped out immediately and anybody resisting the reforms needed should be removed from their positions.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Why does it have to be 12 billion in waste, this mantra of only gaining negligible savings by sorting out all the frivolous waste is an insult to the taxpayer. ANY waste should be stomped out immediately and anybody resisting the reforms needed should be removed from their positions.

Indeed we should take a random selection of 5% out and shoot them now, we then inform the 95% left if they dont shape up they will suffer the same faith.

We still have that deficit to consider, what do we do then?

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

Indeed we should take a random selection of 5% out and shoot them now, we then inform the 95% left if they dont shape up they will suffer the same faith.

We still have that deficit to consider, what do we do then?

Your missing the point altogether nobody is talking about shooting anybody or randomly picking anything simply identify areas where there can be savings made and implement them.

Anything else is protectionism and a blatant disregard for the public finances.

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Your missing the point altogether nobody is talking about shooting anybody or randomly picking anything simply identify areas where there can be savings made and implement them.

Anything else is protectionism and a blatant disregard for the public finances.

So when you say "simply identify areas where there can be savings made and implement them" you mean make staff redundant right?

Jaysoose

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

So when you say "simply identify areas where there can be savings made and implement them" you mean make staff redundant right?

Thats not what im saying at all there could be a number of different ways to implement savings not only redundancies, you can use this emotive style of debate where you immediately bypass all other avenues and go straight to what should be the last resort of sacking if you like.

Savings could mean a lot of things and you know this fine well even if you choose not to see it.

My argument still stands this straw man argument of "it would ONLY save x or y" is simply not acceptable.

UDAWINNER

n97 mini wrote: »

Been doing some rudimentary maths here, and it seems like not a lot is the answer.

Taking the average public sector salary of around €50k, this will pay the salaries of around 320 public servants.

There are 34 local authorities across the country (I'm leaving out the 80 or so town councils), so on average this will pay the salaries of 9 staff per authority.

My local authority has over 4,000 staff, and this will pay for 0.002% of them.

If it doubles next year... well it's still not going to amount to a lot.

100 X 1.6 Million Homes = 160 million
160 million/ 50 k = 3,200 PS
Back to basic maths

amacca

Jaysoose wrote: »

ANY waste should be stomped out immediately and anybody resisting the reforms needed should be removed from their positions.

who identifies what reforms are necessary?

can we trust them absolutely?

is there a possibility some could be resisting out of more than just greed and/or naked self interest?

RobbieTheRobber

Jaysoose wrote: »

Thats not what im saying at all there could be a number of different ways to implement savings not only redundancies, you can use this emotive style of debate where you immediately bypass all other avenues and go straight to what should be the last resort of sacking if you like. .

Im not using any emotive language I joined a thread that linked the property tax straight to ps pay.
So seeing as that is the basis for the argument one can only assume the op consider that wage budget excessive.
The post i quoted prior to you quoting me was about making savings from reform before tax increases. Seeing as the IMF deal required to us to make over 3 billion in savings i see no other way to ensure that from the pay budget except through redundancies, non-voluntary rendundancies at that.

If you wish to dicsuss the number of ways for reform Im willing to discuss it, but I dont believe this is the thread for that.

Jaysoose wrote: »

Savings could mean a lot of things and you know this fine well even if you choose not to see it.

I dont know what ways the savings can be made, but as I said above I certainly question how 3 billion would be made to meet the returns needed for december 2012.

Jaysoose wrote: »

My argument still stands this straw man argument of "it would ONLY save x or y" is simply not acceptable.

While I enjoy you arguing with yourself I hope you are not attributing this argument to me as so far in this thread I have said nothing along the lines of "it would ONLY save x or y"!

n97 mini

UDAWINNER wrote: »

100 X 1.6 Million Homes = 160 million
160 million/ 50 k = 3,200 PS
Back to basic maths

Wow, my maths teacher (and his pension) were worse than first suspected.

Ok. So we're paying the wages of 0.02% of staff. That's a big difference alright!

Avatarr

Gross exchequer public sector pension bill for 2010 was 2.7bn, public sector tax receipts 2.8bn. With retirements and redundancies next year, there will be a shortfall between tax receipts and pension provisions. This is fact, guess who picks up the tab, this is excluding the increment hike. This can't work.....

n97 mini

Avatarr wrote: »

Gross exchequer public sector pension bill for 2010 was 2.7bn, public sector tax receipts 2.8bn. With retirements and redundancies next year, there will be a shortfall between tax receipts and pension provisions. This is fact, guess who picks up the tab, this is excluding the increment hike. This can't work.....

Don't worry, all the PS defenders will be along shortly to tell you you're wrong/racist/public service basher/it's not their fault/what about the banks/private sector are lying... etc.

K-9

The Local Government fund has been wiped out and this is to pay for it.

You aren't getting anything for it, just at best, keeping the existing services from your local Government. They aren't great? Yeah, because Local Government has been starved of funds for years.

schween

Jaysoose wrote: »

Well said ZULU the fat cats in gubberment think we are all stupid, the payments will not get anywhere near the local authorities and will be poured into the black hole of the public finances.

Well money is being transferred from the less well off to the better off. They don't care if we know about it or not. What matters is that they get away with it. Which they are.

Us knowing what they are doing and them getting away with it does make us kinda stupid!

kippy

Avatarr wrote: »

Gross exchequer public sector pension bill for 2010 was 2.7bn, public sector tax receipts 2.8bn. With retirements and redundancies next year, there will be a shortfall between tax receipts and pension provisions. This is fact, guess who picks up the tab, this is excluding the increment hike. This can't work.....

Where are you getting those figures from?